Archive for August, 2012

I was looking at news about how the Republican party bosses took their wolf masks off at the RNC (the Dems don’t seem to bother wearing them, people with eyes can see that) and changed the rules retroactively and CHEATING the Ron Paul supporters out of the chance to see their nominee’s name put to nomination on the floor.

If they think it was a “demonstration of unity”, it’s because somewhere along the line the fell into Lewis Carroll’s hallucinogen-fueled rabbit hole and came out, but they left their minds in there.

The truth will win out, because it is the truth.

But while I was checking the usual places that have the news that matters on the subject, I came across Walter Block’s article at lewrockwell.com complaining that he was booed at one moment in his speech at the Ron Paul Rally in Tampa on Sunday, August 26.

In fairness to Walter Block, and as my own disclaimer, I have to say that this is the first time I’ve heard of the term “evictionism” or the concept itself as a libertarian answer to the apparent dilemna (for some) of reconciling the libertarian philosophy with the obligation of a mother to a baby, especially a baby in the womb.

I haven’t thought deeply enough about this to reconcile my strict pro-life views for the libertarians who might not be pro-life or who might see this as a dilema for the liberty-minded who base the concept of liberty on the individual.

So my first reaction is the following, which Block’s article brought to articulation for me (thank you Mr. Block). As time permits, I will read the half-dozen articles (or most of them) he ahs written and provided links for, and his links to critiques to them, and his own rejoinders in turn.

The strict libertarian philosophy upon which both evictionism, and even those who are “pro-choice”, along with its direct corollaries, provides an answer to what is to some a dilemna.

We oppose government “help” because it robs somebody to give something to a third party, besides something for the “middleman”, meaning the government operatives who have to also be fed.

We want the freedom to engage in business, trade with our neighbors, prepare our lives as best we see fit, for better or for worse. This includes living with our actions. We also know that the best government for the poor is the government that gives them nothing at all, because in such an environment they don’t have to take anything from the people who would give them jobs, or help the helpless.

But part of the package is living with the consequences, both gains and losses and other incidental effects, of our own actions and our own decisions.

By this time in life in history, anybody who has read this writing up to here, must know that a baby happens when a man and a woman have sex. A baby is conceived only after the womb receives a man’s “seed” and a sperm cell finds the ovum.

There are varying figures on how many pregnancies result from rapes, but they are rare. For the pregnancies that do not result from rape, it is a deliberate act by a woman and a man that results in conception.

BABY AS CONSEQUENCE OF VOLUNTARY SEX

If a baby results from conception in such a situation, in other words, it is because a decision was made. If the act was done without contraception, the “risk” is rather evident. Even most elementary-aged children are aware of how babies are made. Even those using contraceptives or contraceptive methods should be aware that they have their risk factors as well.

Ah, the consequence is maybe bigger than the compulsion, but it is a live human being to which the mother is obligated, even in the strictest libertarian sense by virtue of her decision. If you have sex and conceive, the baby is a consequence that demands the mother’s attention.

Most pro-lifers actually see a baby as a blessing, a gift, if not from God, then from nature. Only in the last century has this view been under attack by neo-Malthusian philosophy and and hedonist culture –aided by subtle hedonist propaganda in entertainment. Baby-as-burden has hitchiked into the culture on the backs of nonsensical circular oxymorons like “overpopulation”.

The obligation to the baby as consequence, of course, is until the baby grows into a viable person that can fend on its own.

IN THE CASE OF RAPE

When a baby is conceived as a result of a rape, this of course is not so obvious, and here is where we should be able to see that the laws of nature and our natural liberties with regard to the baby in the womb are not so obvious.

The baby conceived after voluntary sex is an obligation by virtue of the consequence of a voluntary act.

But the baby conceived from a rape is still a baby, and is still due all the rights and liberties incumbent upon anyone at all, including the mother. The abuse of the innocent by virtue of size or power is the opposite of liberty, so an induced abortion is not acceptable.

But the baby by virtue of biology will require active sustenance from the mother, and cannot receive it from elsewhere. So the mother is obligated.

How to reconcile this with libertarianism? Well, here is where it becomes obvious that libertarianism cannot be described as being free from involuntary obligation to another.

Not all is lost, here, however. The very principles of libertarian thinking are based on respecting your neighbor and all his rights. To some extent or another neighbors are interdependent and there is sometimes an action required by one to simply reaffirm that right.

Who can deny the biggest example in the 21st century of the recognition of this fact by our own most lauded hero of the day, Ron Paul? This is the man who on principle gave up most of the congressional salary his peers had voted for themselves, and credibly pledged to refuse most of the presidential salary also. This is the man who on principle refused government money and tended to many patients free of charge who could not pay.

So nature has given a bonus to a father and mother in the person of a sired child. If they refuse this bounty, it’s not the baby’s fault and she/he should not pay for their short-mindedness either.

Many, probably most, who do not see a baby as having the right to his parents’ sustenance and protection, will not yet be convinced at this point.

But this whole academic discussion reaffirms something that is already rather obvious to me, and that is, that the traditional nuclear family is the absolute best protection for liberty. A father, mother, and the children their union brings to the world.

In the meantime, if you get the government out of the picture, there are wildly enthusiastic individuals eager to help families and adopt those babies and raise them with love. Most governments today intrude abusively into the adoptive process and encourages abortions, meaning they are more interested in population reduction than in “taking care of us”.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on What are libertarians to do with babies?

Instead of calling the fascist left on its fake outrage over Todd Akin’s remarks, they have lost a good chance to direct the conversation to the real victim of abortion, that being the child.

And the fact that the abortion after a rape kills the innocent baby and leaves the criminal alive. Three to four years prison.

They also are too polite. They should trot out the three women who publicly and credibly accused Bill Clinton of rape when they thought they had a chance to tell the truth without getting killed for it. The former Miss Arkansas said she feared for her safety, and Elizabeth Ward Gracen, who said she was warned to keep her mouth shut about an affair.

Somebody put the Republicans on suicide watch, please. They railroaded Romney through to thwart the guy with provably the best chance against Obama –that would be Ron Paul, of course– and now they eat their own because somebody said boo.

Somebody say “stupid”? Hey, what’s the big deal anyway? We have a president that thinks there are 57 states in the union. (The TOTUS was broken that day maybe).

In 2009 “climate alarmist” James Hansen was yelling disaster of global warming caused by man. Then in 2009 he, among others, was exposed by emails leaked to wikileaks of his that admitted to global cooling, quietly and privately. This last summer he blamed the heat on AGW, at a time when the solar maximum was at a maximum of maximums in belting out energy from the sun.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC – Shameless People Lying Constantly) lists Family Research Council as a “hate” group, because the SPLC and its goosestepping spiritual comrades hate the FRC. By “hate groups” they mean groups of people they hate, because they disagree. There are petty dictators afoot in the land and the organizations that give voice to the views of the 99% are in the way of the Groupthink Tyranny they are forming.
So they call it hate as a Pavlov trick. Don’t get Pavloved.
They prattled on and on about the Colorado shooting, but they barely reported this leftist hater who brought his gun concealed in his bag to shoot up the FRC offices in Washington, D.C., where it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon. The unarmed guard took a bullet in his wrist while he wrestled the comrade to the ground, while help was on its way.

Just shows that no matter how quick your local law enforcement is, they cannot get to the scene of the crime as fast as somebody who is already there. And the firearm ported by the good guy already on the scene is much more useful almost always than the guns the police force is bringing.

The only reason that the guard was able to nip this attack in the bud was that he was thinking fast and came toward the perpetrator before the perp was ready.

The guy had umpteen rounds of ammo ready to load and a bunch of bags of Chick-Fil-A to throw on the dead bodies.

Now what he did not realize, that SPLC does, is that his action was premature. SPLC wants “hate crime laws” that will use the armed force of the entire United States against such activists that they don’t like, and that’s a LOT of guns.

Government is the biggest gang there is and just like the radical anti-war Berkeley students turned the ears of the Hell’s Angels against the Vietnam War back in the 1960s, SPLC and like-minded comrades are the propaganda arm of the tyranny-building leftists/fascinsts in government. There is no substantive difference between National Socialism and International Socialism. It’s just a matter of whether your turf claim is national –like Hitler’s National Socialists– or international –like the modern United Nations internationalists and their friends the international bankers and money changers.

In this article by Mike Reid, you can find another perspective for seeing the folly of central planning, and how the free market gives people the optimum desired effect, when that “desired effect” is measured by what those people actually want and need. The article is a review of a book by James C. Scott, “Seeing Like a State”, subtitled “How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed”.

where Scott describes case after case in which government planners decreed solutions to “improve” the life of their subects and how those “solutions” proved to be colossal failures.

One thing missed in what passes for public discourse is how to define what is an actual basic “need”, as compared to their “wants”. Social utopians who want a government-enforced supply of all people’s “needs” are pushing for their own vision of what people’s “needs” are.

Everyone needs food, for example, but specific nutritional needs vary. Some foods can substitute for others but the cost varies by where the person is, what particular food allergies another may have, and so on. There is no way to perfectly micro-manage this by decree or by regulatory agency. Providing such decision-making power to a regulatory agency or social welfare agency merely gives government agents the power to dictate your life according to their idea, not yours.

The folly of dictating what’s best for us is easily illustrated by an incident in the “News of the Absurd” columns of newspapers and Internet pages. A young, new, mother, who was breastfeeding her days-old infant, innocently called some mothering hotline and asked the social worker on the other end whether it was normal for a breastfeeding Mom to feel some of the sexual stimulation during the feeding.

The social worker reported it to somebody and the Parent Police snatched that baby and it took the mother two whole years to get her baby back.

She will never call a hotline again.

A wise man (or woman) learns from his mistakes, a wiser man learns from the mistakes of others. Let us learn from that mother’s mistake.

The Declaration of Independence lays out the case for invoking a law that is greater than any gang with guns you might call “government”. The signers of the Declaration and the USA Constitution warned their descendants (that’s us) against trusting that government, and warned us to keep ourselves always ready to repel assaults on our rights that might come from it.

They did not trust the government they were forming. All of history teaches that lesson. No government is better than the people that run it.

Back to needs. No way can you decree from above what is “preventive” medicine and curative. The folly of trusting government with such definitions was in full view exhibit with one recent controversy.

Sure, the requirement that not only Catholic institutions pay for no-charge contraception through a required insurance policy is an attack on everyone’s religious freedom. Under the same command-government principles, and the Golden Rule, an atheist can be required to pay for abstinence preaching to teenagers. (I am against all such government mandates of course). After all, abstinence is the absolute best contraceptive known to mankind, and works 100% of the time.

But is contraception “preventive medicine”? What “sickness” does it cure, what “illness” does it prevent?

Pregnancy is not an evil disease, it is the result of a body healthy enough to conceive.

An Amish does not “need” nearly as much as the rest of us. We need this, that, the other.

I had to both guffaw and groan during the debates during 2010 and 2011 over the government medical industry control legislation, when the control-freak propagandists argued that everybody, without exception, at one point or another, enters into medical commerce.

It was a guffaw to hear government-mandate apologists argue that they supposedly wanted to stop freeloaders from riding free. But I groaned when even the attorneys arguing against this unconstitutional idiocy did not use the best response to the argument that “everybody uses it”.

I am absolutely sure that there are quite a number of people alive today who have never entered into what we would consider the general medical market. There are Amish I’m sure who will never use a hospital. Certainly there are many of us who would prefer to skip out of any government-ordered system of medicine, at whatever the risk.

Rulers cannot know all the needs of each individual all the time. Some will never use certain remedies, some will ONLY want to use natural remedies. These are not freeloaders but free spirits who are ready to meet the consequences of distrusting the discredited idea of trusting the mandates of rulers. They have learned that when our rulers tell us they are doing something to us for our own good, those rulers are doing it for their own reasons, not ours.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on No economist or group of them can predict or control an entire economy

Here is one of the main reasons it seems like a communications gap to doublethink victims that support their own horse jockey from their own team (aka “political party”) when they are “in power”.

Almost all liberty-minded people understand how the government-conformists and the “useful idiots” think, because we are all immersed in the propaganda from all fronts from their plutocrat manipulators.

It’s been changing because they let the Internet Pandora out of the box. They have their plans for it, no doubt, but the free enterprise system made it work. Obama did NOT make that happen, neither did Gore, and the myth that it was all a government program that made it happen is a LIE, when applied to the almost free-wheeling medium (at least in our U.S.) it has become.

There were a bunch on on-line services already going before the IP network began to coalesce around the biggest one, of course the government’s.

Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy, and a thousand on-line bulletin board services, one of which was David Gibbs’ own, which became the www.midrange.com of today. Given a bit more time, these services could have, would have surely evolved into an interoperable multi-network, with standards forming that organizations agreed on, just as they have done in thousands of other areas.

The Internet became what it is today only after the free market got ahold of it and started a parade of innovations built on it, while the free market also drove the hardware innovations that accompanied it, and the Internet, the hardware, and the software markets began a positive feedback cycle that continues today.

But the alternative media of the 1960’s “left”, which fed the move toward a body politic that was more friendly and trusting toward government dictates, has devolved into commercially-driven free weekly newspapers that cater to the more libidinous and hedonistic temptations (a revolutionary strategy that was embraced by my own radical college sociology professor).

But the new alternative media is all over the place and ideas of liberty are dominating it. Rebellion against the forced lockstep conformist march toward tyranny is spreading the fire of individual freedom.

The Internet, twitter, talk radio, and even the youth is hearing this new call to liberty.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Free Market made the Internet What It Is, Remember that!